US judge: Samsung’s products infringe on Apple design patents

A US federal judge has agreed that Samsung's devices violate Apple's design …

Samsung and Apple were in federal court in California on Thursday to argue over Apple's request for a preliminary injunction barring sales of Galaxy Tab and Galaxy S devices in the US. US District Judge Lucy Koh suggested that Samsung's devices do appear to infringe on Apple's design patents, though her final decision, expected soon, has yet to be issued.

Meanwhile, Samsung's efforts to leverage standards-essential 3G patents to ban sales of Apple's newest iPhone 4S have fallen flat in The Netherlands. A Dutch court ruled that standards agreements require Samsung to negotiate licensing for the patented technology, used in 3G networking, on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms.

The whole legal morass between Apple and Samsung first began in the US in April, when Apple accused Samsung of "slavishly copying" its designs for the iPhone and iPad to make the Galaxy S smartphones and Galaxy Tab tablets. Samsung fired back with lawsuits in Europe and Asia, and the fight eventually spilled over into nine countries, including Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, the UK, and South Korea.

Apple has pushed for preliminary injunctions in most jurisdictions. The company won a ban against the Galaxy Tab in Germany over a registered European Community Design, analogous to design patents here in the US. A Dutch judge issued an injunction against certain Samsung smartphones over one particular Apple patent related to photo album interaction, though Samsung issued a software update to work around it. This week an Australian judge also issued an injunction against the Galaxy Tab in that country as well.

"Not at this distance"

Apple requested a preliminary US injunction against Samsung in July, and Judge Koh agreed to an expedited trial schedule at Apple's request. The hearing on the matter took place Thursday, and things didn't go particularly well for Samsung. Koh declined to issue an injunction on the lone utility patent that Apple asserted for the injunction (there are more asserted for the full trial), but did note that Samsung's devices clearly violated Apple's design patents.

To illustrate her point, Koh held both devices up and asked Samsung's lead counsel, Kathleen Sullivan, if she could identify which one was an iPad and which one was a Galaxy Tab. "Not at this distance your honor," she said, approximately 10 feet from the bench.

Judge Koh said she would still have to determine whether or not Apple's design patents should be considered valid. Samsung argued that the injunction should not be granted because the patents are likely invalid. However, Koh said her final decision on the injunction will be issued "fairly promptly."

A preliminary injunction in the US, one of the top smartphone markets worldwide, would be seen as a serious setback for Samsung, especially given the other injunctions it has received so far.

Ain't no FRAND of mine

At the same time, Samsung's efforts to fight back against Apple using FRAND-encumbered wireless networking patents appears to indeed be backfiring. The company filed countersuits against Apple in several countries alleging that Apple's iPhones and 3G iPads infringe on several patents Samsung holds that are essential to 3G/UMTS standards. "[A]s long as Apple does not drop mobile telecommunications functions, it would be impossible for it to sell its i-branded products without using our patents," one executive told The Korea Times.

However, that patented technology was included in 3G standards on the condition that Samsung would license those patents to anyone that wanted to use the standard on FRAND terms. Samsung allegedly tried to extract a 2.4 percent royalty from each Apple device, which Apple promptly rejected as unfair and discriminatory.

Samsung moved to have Apple's iPhones banned in the Netherlands, but a Dutch court ruled on Friday that Samsung's attempt to leverage standards-essential patents was an "abuse" of its rights. The judge ordered Samsung and Apple to continue negotiating until a agreement was made that satisfied FRAND requirements.

That ruling could help Apple avoid injunctions in similar cases, particularly in France and Italy, where Samsung is requesting similar injunctions based on the same patents.

Given the weakness that Samsung's defense has shown so far, and with its offensive strategy on shaky legal ground, Samsung may have little choice but to work things out with Apple, and likely on Apple's terms.

Edit: Looking forward to seeing all the people complaining about IP law, who, end up showing themselves to be completely ignorant about the IP laws in play here, and instead going off of the standard "it doesn't seem fair to me" reasoning.

Quote:

Ouch. You know that the Koh test is going to be tried in all these courts.

Yeah, that's not a good thing when your lawyer can't tell the difference between the two products when asked by the judge.

I don't like IP suits, generally. But Samsung did blatantly copy Apple's entire iOS/iPad design scheme, from the tablet's case to its software's skin. They shouldn't be allowed to do that -- no one should be allowed to do that. Put your own spin on it if you're going to release a product equivalent to a competitor's. A carbon copy just makes you look bad.

Judge Annabelle Bennett who previously agreed with Apple's request for a preliminary injunction this time sided with Samsung. She commented, "It does seem to me not to be warranted that the sort of order that you've sought be applied."

You know, there are dozens of tablets out there. Playbooks, HP's one, the Xoom... Apple has not sued over any but the Samsung stuff. No one else was stupid enough to try what Samsung did. I'm pretty sure that Apple won't sue over a Windows tablet either.

When your own attorney cannot tell the difference between your product and the complainents... it's a pretty good sign you might be in trouble.

As for those who think Samsung should be allowed to do whatever the heck they want, may I ask WHY do you want them to be able to disguise their products like Apple's? Seems to be an admission they can't do anything on their own.

To illustrate her point, Koh held both devices up and asked Samsung's lead counsel, Kathleen Sullivan, if she could identify which one was an iPad and which one was a Galaxy Tab. "Not at this distance your honor," she said, approximately 10 feet from the bench.

To illustrate her point, Koh held both devices up and asked Sorny's lead counsel, Kathleen Sullivan, if she could identify which one was an Sorny Bravio and which one was a Magnetbox Infrinia HDTV. "Not at this distance your honor," she said, approximately 10 feet from the bench.

To illustrate her point, Koh held both devices up and asked Samsung's lead counsel, Kathleen Sullivan, if she could identify which one was an iPad and which one was a Galaxy Tab. "Not at this distance your honor," she said, approximately 10 feet from the bench.

To illustrate her point, Koh held both devices up and asked Sorny's lead counsel, Kathleen Sullivan, if she could identify which one was an Sorny Bravio and which one was a Magnetbox Infrinia HDTV. "Not at this distance your honor," she said, approximately 10 feet from the bench.

That the judge asked Samsung to identify their phone is the biggest fucking joke I have ever heard. Lets see if she can identify which brand jeans I am fucking wearing. Talk about a kangaroo court. What is this, a 3rd grade justice system?

I thought a judge would be someone with above average brains and reasoning. Am I wrong ? or is this specific to US judges ? or do they 'favor' US companies over foreign ones ? if it was Apple vs Motorola for instance.Would the judge act the same ?

That the judge asked Samsung to identify their phone is the biggest fucking joke I have ever heard. Lets see if she can identify which brand jeans I am fucking wearing. Talk about a kangaroo court. What is this, a 3rd grade justice system?

I am going to hold up two slr cameras from 10 or so feet away and you tell me which one is the canon and which one is the nikon. I bet a majority of people would mess that up. Same goes for any similarly designed device. That is a ridiculous argument. Now if I were to hold them in front of my face and couldn't tell the difference that is one thing but this just blows my mind.

That the judge asked Samsung to identify their phone is the biggest fucking joke I have ever heard. Lets see if she can identify which brand jeans I am fucking wearing. Talk about a kangaroo court. What is this, a 3rd grade justice system?

No. Ignorance of the law doesn't excuse breaking it. This is how trade dress has worked for hundreds of years.

There has been lots of teeth gnashing about patenting rectangles, but this is just getting lost in the legalese. The key issue (and intent of the law) is exactly what the judge is looking at: can an average consumer easily differentiate between the products. It's bad if your counsel can't.

The classic case involved cars where a company modified a Ford to look exactly like a Ferrari. You can make any car shape you want, but you have to make it unique enough that it looks like its own thing. (Interestingly I believe you can modify your own car to look like another, you just can't resell it.)

Regardless of the legal situation, I wish Samsung had more pride. WP7 & WebOS have neat distinctive looks and clear ideas---tons of respect for that. The Android variants are less distinctive, but most of them are clearly trying to look different. But Samsung seems to be openly aping, and I with they had the self respect to take a chance and actually bring something new to the table.

I thought a judge would be someone with above average brains and reasoning. Am I wrong ? or is this specific to US judges ? or do they 'favor' US companies over foreign ones ? if it was Apple vs Motorola for instance.Would the judge act the same ?

Yes. This is how the trade dress and trade mark law has operated since the beginning of US law.